Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Relaxin <noname(at)spam(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date: 2003-09-05 02:32:23
Message-ID: 1062729142.364.20.camel@tokyo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 22:13, Relaxin wrote:
> Finally, someone who will actually assume/admit that it is returning the
> entire result set to the client.
> Where as other DBMS manage the records at the server.

Is there a reason you can't use cursors (explicitely, or via ODBC if it
provides some glue on top of them) to keep the result set on the server?

http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-declare.html
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-fetch.html

> The next one is the handling of BLOBS. PG handles them like no other system
> I have ever come across.

Just FYI, you can use both the lo_*() functions, as well as simple
bytea/text columns (which can be very large in PostgreSQL).

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-05 04:34:06 Re: Query too slow
Previous Message Relaxin 2003-09-05 02:13:30 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS